Congress Takes Up Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Photo taken at a February 13, 2003 press conference
on Capitol Hill to announce the reintroduction of the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act. Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Oh.), the prime sponsor of the bill
(left); NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson (speaking); and Congressman
F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wi.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
(right). NRLC photo by Patricia Coll
President Bush Urges Senate to
Pass the Ban
House Passes NRLC-Backed Bill to
Ban the Cloning of Human Embryos, But Many Senators Still Back Human Cloning
for Biomedical Research
|Pro-life President George W. Bush urges Senate to pass
the bill to ban the cloning of human embryos.|
WASHINGTON (March 7, 2003) -- The critical issue of banning the
cloning of humans is back in the lap of the U.S. Senate.
On February 27, the House of Representatives passed the NRLC-backed Weldon-Stupak
bill (H.R. 534) to ban the cloning of human embryos, 241-155, after first
rejecting a substitute proposal that the White House said would allow cloned
"human embryo farms."
The two votes were big wins for those opposed to human cloning, which includes
President Bush, NRLC, and other groups from across the political spectrum.
President Bush commended the House's action, and urged the Senate to approve
the ban as well.
"Like most Americans, I believe human cloning is deeply troubling,
and I strongly support efforts by Congress to ban all human cloning,"
Bush said in a written statement. "We must advance the promise and
cause of medical science, including through ethical stem cell research,
yet we must do so in ways that respect human dignity and help build a culture
of life. I urge the Senate to act quickly on legislation banning all human
Help Combat "Media
Myths" on Human Cloning Bills!
Recent Developments on Partial-Birth
Responding to President Bush's Call
to Ban "Abhorrent Procedure," Congress Takes Up Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act
|This illustration is part of a series that accurately depicts
a partial-birth abortion being performed on a partly delivered baby of 24
weeks gestational age. The complete series is found on page 16. Artwork
by Tanja Butler, courtesy of Heathers Place, 505-521-0105, firstname.lastname@example.org.|
WASHINGTON (March 7, 2003) - - The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act - - a major pro-life federal legislative priority since 1995 - - is
slated for congressional action in the immediate future. There is fierce
resistance to the bill among lawmakers closely allied with the abortion
lobby, and its enactment is far from guaranteed - - but pro-life forces
are guardedly optimistic of success because of strong support for the legislation
by President Bush.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has been introduced in the U.S. House
of Representatives by Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Oh.), chairman of the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, as H.R. 760, which
currently has 153 sponsors and cosponsors. The same bill has been introduced
in the Senate by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Republican
Conference, as S. 3, which currently has 44 sponsors and cosponsors.
Senate Republican leaders listed the bill as one of their "Top Ten"
priority measures, and the Senate may take up the bill as early as the week
of March 10.
|HOME - - www.nrlc.org|
From the President
Wanda Franz, Ph.D.
DEEP IN THE FOG OF "CHOICE"
Recently, newspapers carried the following
exchange between a reader and a widely-read medical advice columnist, Dr.
X (his real name is not important here, and a wave of letters reprimanding
him would be counterproductive):
DEAR DR. X: I am responding to your column about counseling for a
woman who continued to feel guilty about an abortion she had 20 years ago.
Planned Parenthood is not an appropriate resource. These people are probably
the ones who convinced her to have an abortion in the first place! Your
reader should probably more properly receive treatment from a church-supported
pregnancy counseling center.
DEAR READER: From the tone of the letter to which I responded, I believed
that anti-abortion counseling was not what the reader needed. So I referred
her to a more eclectic resource.
Personally, I feel that adoption is preferable to abortion, but I
support a woman's choice in the matter. And I agree with you (and other
readers) that alternative organizations can certainly play a vital role
in helping such people deal with the emotional upheaval of abortion. Such
help is available through many community institutions.
Dr. X's response is typical of the well-meaning "mushy middle"
in the age of "choice." I'm sure that Dr. X wants only the best
for the people seeking advice from him. And I'm equally sure that Dr. X
is a very competent physician. Yet when it comes to the topic of abortion,
he appears to be pressured to conform to the foggy thinking that the culture
of "choice" demands of the "enlightened" among us. The
point here is not to berate Dr. X personally but to illustrate the intellectual
and moral confusion that results from the uncritical acceptance of "choice."
DECEMBER 9, 1997
FEBRUARY 11, 1998
MARCH 11, 1998
APRIL 14, 1998
MAY 7, 1998
JULY 8, 1998
JUNE 9, 1998
AUGUST 12, 1998
SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
OCTOBER 12, 1998
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
DECEMBER 10, 1998
JANUARY 22, 1999
FEBRUARY 19, 1999
MARCH 15, 1999
APRIL 8, 1999
MAY 11, 1999
JUNE 10, 1999
JULY 6, 1999
AUGUST 10, 1999
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
OCTOBER 12, 1999
Subscribe Today to NRL News